IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017448 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states he has new evidence that was not previously presented in his case.

   a.  He restates that he was administered Antabuse medication and was not of sound mind during the time he submitted his request for discharge.  The Army looked at him as a bad person and he was bombarded with information that submitting a request for discharge was the right thing to do.
   
   b.  He adds that his military personnel records show evidence of his accomplishments as documented by his military training and awards.

3.  The applicant provides copies of two letters of support (one he previously submitted), his military training certificates and award documents, separation documents, and military and post-service medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130015491, on 15 May 2014.
2.  After having had prior honorable service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 8 February 1978 for a period of 
3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Power Generator and Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic).

3.  He reenlisted in the RA on 20 August 1981 for a period of 3 years.   He then extended his reenlistment commitment and established his expiration term of service date as 19 April 1986.

4.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), item 17 (Civilian and Military Schools), shows he completed the following training:

* Chemical Operations Specialist (MOS 54E), 1978
* Power Generator and Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (MOS 63B), 1978
* Power Generator/Diesel Mechanic, 1981
* Basic Leadership Course, 1981
* Metal Body Repair, 1982
* Small Engine Specialist, 1982
* Bus Driver Course, 1982
* Bus Driver Training Course, 1983
* German Headstart, 1983
* Primary Leadership Development Course, 1984

5.  He was promoted to sergeant/pay grade (E-5) effective 1 May 1985.

6.  On 21 November 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was informed of the charges against him for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and that he was pending trial by court-martial.  The charges included violation of:

* Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation) on 16 June 1985
* Article 95 (resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape) on 26 October 1985
* Article 128 (assault), four specifications (two on 16 June 1985 and two on 26 October 1985)
* Article 134 (indecent language, and drunk and disorderly), three specifications (on 16 June 1985)
* Article 134, UCMJ (drunk and disorderly) on 26 October 1985

   a.  He was advised of the rights available to him and of the option to request discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

	b.  He voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and acknowledged the decision was of his own free fill.  By submitting his request for discharge he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charges against him or of lesser included offenses therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge.

	c.  He was advised that he might be:

* deprived of many or all Army benefits
* ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

   d.  He acknowledged he understood that, if his request for discharge was accepted, he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.

	e.  He was also advised that he could submit statements in his own behalf and he elected not to submit any statements.

   f.  The applicant and his counsel placed their signatures on the document.

7.  His immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

8.  On 13 December 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge, directed his reduction in grade to private/pay grade E-1 and that he be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

9.  A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant was discharged on 15 January 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 

   a.   He had completed 7 years, 11 months, and 8 days of net active service during this period.


   b.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows he was awarded the:

* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver ("W") Component Bar
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 1

10.  The applicant submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 6 March 1990, he was notified that the ADRB had determined that the reason for his discharge and characterization of his service were both proper and equitable.  Accordingly, the ADRB denied the relief requested by the applicant.

11.  A review of the applicant's available military service records failed to show any evidence that he was found unfit for military service due to a disqualifying physical, medical, or mental condition.

12.  In support of his application for reconsideration the applicant provides the following pertinent documents not previously considered.

   a.  A statement written by Sergeant R____ F. C____ addressed to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 17 August 2014, that shows he served as the applicant's Motor Pool Supervisor in Company C, 141st Signal Company, Ansbach, Germany, from 1985 to 1986.  He states the applicant was prescribed Antabuse for alcohol substance abuse and the commander and first sergeant directed him to take the medication daily or risk being discharged based on alcohol/substance abuse.  On the applicant's behalf he reported to the first sergeant that the medication made the applicant very sick.  The first sergeant directed the applicant to return to the physician who had prescribed the medication to determine if the dosage was too strong.  He concludes by stating the applicant took the medication for at least one year.

   b.  Medical records that show, on 6 June 2008, the VA granted the applicant service connection for the following conditions:

* neck condition – 10 percent
* back condition – 10 percent 
* right shoulder – 10 percent

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge characterization of under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

   c. 	Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
   
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was taking Antabuse medication and was not of sound mind at the time he submitted his request for discharge, and he was provided information that submitting a request for discharge was the right thing to do.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was prescribed Antabuse for his alcohol substance abuse.  However, there is no evidence of record that shows he was found unfit for military service due to a disqualifying physical, medical, or mental condition.  Thus, his contention that he was not of sound mind during the period of service under review is not supported by the evidence of record.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary (emphasis added) and administratively correct.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

   a.  In addition, the evidence of record shows that by submitting his request for discharge the applicant acknowledged in writing that he was guilty of the charges against him (emphasis added) or of lesser included offenses therein contained.

   b.  Therefore, considering all the facts of the case, it is concluded the reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant reenlisted in the RA on 
20 August 1981.  Subsequent to reenlisting, he was charged with offenses punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, he was reduced to grade E-1, and he failed to complete his reenlistment obligation.   Thus, the applicant's record of service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and he is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

5.  Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for granting the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130015491, dated 15 May 2014.



      _______ _   _X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017448



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017448



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1